Please keep things civil and assume good faith. If you disagree with another person's edits please work things out in a civil manner on the article talk page in accordance with the neutral point of view policy instead of engaging in a revert war.

(SNIP) Rm PoV sandboxing. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is poorly written and researched, and betrays the author's point of view by using the heading "Fronts," describing talk show host Bill O'Reilly as a "reporter," and listing stores as being "for" or "against" Christmas based on whether they "allow" the greeting "Merry Christmas" on signs (signs that they presumably pay for, and are hanging in their stores). Lindmere 01:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a "war on Christmas" hardly originated with Bill O'Reilly. It has a long history in the 20th century, including Henry Ford's 1921 pamphlet "The International Jew" and various writings of the John Birch Society. Lindmere 01:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remember folks sign your posts. Chooserr

Preferably with the four tildes ~~~~ that automatically add a timestamp. FreplySpang (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Holiday" means "holy day," while "the holidays" in American parlance usually refers to the Christmas-New Year or Thanksgiving-Christmas-New Year period. More recently, with the recognition that non-Christians celebrate holidays at roughly the same time of year, it has expanded to include Hannukah and Kwanzaa.

The phrases "Happy Holidays" has certainly been around at least as long as Irving Berlin's song of the same name, written for the 1942 film "Holiday Inn." Its use as the preferred mercantile greeting may have less to do with retailers wanting to consciously exclude mentions of Christ and more to do with casting as broad a net as possible in search of buyers.Lindmere 01:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a discussion, folks, before merely reverting things that disagree with your opinion. This is not an op-ed page. This is an encyclopedia.

• 1. The image of the 'first christmas' hardly belongs here. This is not a discussion of Christmas, this is the discussion of events 2,000 afterwards. Otherwise we might as well put that picture up with the articles on Crusades and Inquisition.
• 2. There need to be some websites and links for the opposite viewpoint
• 3. The stores "for" - "against" Chrstimas headings is blatant POV
• 4. It's irrelevant what the Salvation Army ringers use the money for. wikify Salvation army, and people can find the information there. 24.164.154.130

I'd feel like laughing if you weren't so wrong. Okay, I gave POV headings....and they were change to just an opposing POV. Nobody bothered to make them Neutral. Also It does matter what the Salvation Army ringers are getting the money for...that's the reason they are banned. Maybe the picture is out of place but there ought to be one. Chooserr

• Huh? How are any of the new headings POV? Please, by all means, suggest more neutral ones. And if you think a picture should be here, then please suggest a more appropriate one. 24.164.154.130

• Your Salvation Army "that's the reason they are banned" claim is false, and therefore I will be removing the mention of the Christmas dinenrs and such. Here's a Snopes article:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/charity/sallyann.asp And a quote: "Target spokesperson Carolyn Brookter said the chain 'determined that if we continue to allow the Salvation Army to solicit, then it opens the door to other groups that wish to solicit our guests.'". If you have conflicting sources that support the inclusion of the 'who raise money for Christmas dinners, toys, and clothing' quote, please provide them here before changing the page again. 24.164.154.130

Seldom have I seen such a ridiculous edit war. An editor removes biased content, while introducing equally biased content from the opposite side. And back and forth it continues... —Lifeisunfair 04:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lifeisunfair. To all parties involved, quit taking potshots at each other at try working together for a change. If the edit war continues it will only result in a locked down article, NPOV tags, and 3RR blocks which benefit no one. Try working from the basics to come up with a basic defenition on what this article addresses; then you can proceed to give an overview of the different POVs. Remember that the point of Wikipedia when addressing these issues is not to editorialize but to provide people with a good overview of things as they are and the opinions held by both sides. This does not extend to convincing people why your POV is the right one. I've also noticed some behavior from anon IPs that look suspiciously like sockpuppets for the same individual. Please note that the 3 Revert Rule still applies for sockpuppets so please do not attempt to circumvent it this way... you will still be blocked if you do. -Loren 10:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see my sentence in the history section making this distinction was removed, so I'll explain the logic behind it and perhaps someone can restate as they see fit in a more neutral manner if they find it valuable.

Objections to the secularization of Christmas have their origins centuries ago with the decision by the Church to locate Christmas at the time of the Roman Saturnalia. Christians have struggled ever since to balance the enjoyable secular aspects of the holiday with the serious religious meaning. This includes the perennial lament that Christmas has become "too commercialized," with the emphasis on shopping and gift-giving.

O'Reilly and Gibson appear to not only embrace but to celebrate the commercial aspect of Christmas as a driving force of the American economy. Their goal seems to be to "give credit where credit is due"--to Christ and Christ's birth as the impetus for an economically powerful annual event. The main thrust of their campaign is to encourage merchants to use the word "Christmas" in advertising, store signs, and in-store greetings. They do not encourage replacing shopping with less secular activities. In that way, I suggest they wish to "re-Christianize" rather than "de-secularize" the holiday. They attribute de-Christianization to pressure applied to merchants by a very specific cabal of "liberal" forces, and seek to counteract their influence by applying counterbalancing economic pressure. The emphasis on the commercial sphere and the identification of a named cabal of interests seems to me to have more in common with earlier political campaigns, like that of the Birchers, and less with the broader, ongoing religious movements to re-center the holiday on religious activities.Lindmere 18:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that O'Reilly and others are motivated by a desire to re-Christianize Christmas (personally, I have no objection to this). But, whether in the process they are promoting a Christianization of the public sphere. The distinction between the public and private sphere is one of the founding principles of the modern state (I mean, going back to John Locke and others) and thus not something to be taken lightly. My point: that this debate is really over two things, and the two things ought not be conflated. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. One problem with this article is placing the current campaign in the context of much larger debates over the secularization of holidays and the separation of church and state without getting too tracked off into those subjects. An interesting question is whether shopping malls are part of the "public sphere" in a politico-philosophical sense. They are certainly private property, which may be why the FOX campaign if focusing its attention on them, since using economic tactics like boycotts against a private company is much more likely to produce results in the near term than attempts to reverse decades of court rulings. Perhaps you could add a paragraph on the church-state separation context with links to appropriate wiki articles? Lindmere 20:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know Verifiability|verifiable Cite sources|sources you can draw on to develop this point in the article? I wish you could/would. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean specifically O'Reilly's and Gibson's claims, or the broader stuff about the Church wrestling with the secularization of Christmas? If the former, it's going to be tough, since FOX news does not provide complete transcripts of its shows, and those that exist in the public domain are usually maintained by anti-O'Reilly bloggers, who wouldn't be considered unbiased sources. I went off a combination of things that I personally saw on FOX, news stories on the FOX website, and videos and transcripts available on various sites. I suppose if someone had a copy of Gibson's book to refer to, that would help. Lindmere 22:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chooserr did not feel the need to actually start a discussion on the topic, instead hiding his opinion in a comment under the NPOV tag. This is what he posted there: "This article has many sections which are POV...such as "Perhaps because their advocates are themselves pro-business, the anti-conspiracy movements have focused less on commercialization and more on de-Christianization." which clearly shows the authors POV. Note: I do not mean the section about Henry Fords views. I found them interesting"

Since that paragraph has now been dealt with, I believe the NPOV tag should be removed.

P.S. I would appreciate it if Chooserr would discuss things in the talk page instead of simply editing that Salvation Army thing in the Target paragraph.24.164.154.130 19:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a constant revert war on John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly, defining them as either "reporters" or "commentator". I believe commentator should be used. While both are correct for these two media personalities, commentator is a better match, since they both are mainly discussing and analyzing the news. 'Reporter' is a general term, while 'commentator' isn't. As an example, George W Bush is a politician or a president, and the latter is a better term since it describes his job better.

I see no reason to oppose "commentator". I do not suppose anyone will actually claim that Gibson and O'Reilly merely present the news without adding their own opinion, and the term "commentator" does not apply to them.24.164.154.130 19:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable compromise, I think. In further support of this, I believe that Gibson's authorship of the book The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday is Worse Than You Thought pretty much nixes the idea of his neutrality on this subject. Lindmere 20:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Thawa changed the sentence reading

" They claim that it spreads to such areas as the removal of Christmas references from public schools, and pressure on cities and towns by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union to remove religious displays (such as the nativity scene)."

to

"Many cite the war on Christmas as part of a larger culture war. It is claimed removal of Christmas references from public schools, and pressure on cities and towns by organizations to remove religious displays (such as the nativity scene is due to the American Civil Liberties Union."

and completely changed the meaning. Now the entire range of items listed in the sentence is simply blamed on the ACLU, instead of there being only one ACLU-linked item. Secondly, the updated sentence somewhere lost the distinction between the actual things that are happening, and things that are alleged to be happening.

I am proposing something like this:

"Many cite the war on Christmas as part of a larger culture war. They claim that removal of Christmas references from public schools, and cities and towns removing religious displays (such as the nativity scene) are all part of a larger liberal effort to desecularize the US."

And in the future I would request that users at least read into the sentence they want to clarify, if they can't be bothered to discuss it. 24.164.154.130 23:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article could do with some citations—a remarkably large proportion of the paragraphs start with weasel terms. Can we please specify who said what, preferably with citations. JeremyA 00:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll out line the reason for my changes...The change on the claims one was because it uses "They claim" and then "alledged" the first would suffice the second changes the meaning so it's like these people are crazy.

The walgreens link is important...should be left alone.

The Wal-mart section is important because the link is useless without it... This section does mention they fired the guy but it also says that they defended him first, which is very important.

I also would like to add a change to the Wal-Mart section saying that their Branch ASDA in the UK still uses the terms "Merry Christmas"...which shows how two faced they are. Thawa

I'll address your changes individually:

• ." → ".

This is incorrect; the period belongs inside the quotation marks.

• Commentators often claim → Some reporters claim

The word "reporters" falsely conveys impartiality. A broadcaster who expresses political opinions (whether from the left or right) is a commentator.

• They claim that it spreads to such areas as the removal of Christmas references from public schools, and alleged pressure on cities and towns by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union to remove religious displays (such as the nativity scene). → It is claimed removal of Christmas references from public schools, and pressure on cities and towns by organizations to remove religious displays (such as the nativity scene is due to the American Civil Liberties Union.

The former conveys that all of this is a biased claim (which it is). The latter assumes that these activities exist, and that only the cause is disputed.

• has focused more narrowly on the ACLU and billionaire financier George Soros [1] → has focused more on the ACLU

1. The word narrowly is not an insult. (It doesn't mean narrow-minded, if that's what you thought.) 2. O'Reilly has blamed George Soros for the "War on Christmas," as indicated in the linked article. An exact quote is located here, but the page also contains harsh criticism of O'Reilly (and therefore isn't an appropriate citation).

• Walgreens: Has stated that they made a "big mistake" by not endorsing Christmas and pledge to do so next year.

I've been unable to locate a single outside reference. Please cite a source.

• Fire an Employee for writing an e-mail about the "origins of Christmas after pressure was put on them by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

This is an unsubstantiated claim.

• == Organizations' websites ==

It's inappropriate to link directly to the websites of peripherally related entities, especially when only one viewpoint is covered.

And of course, you're a sock puppet of the blocked Chooserr, so you shouldn't even be editing. —Lifeisunfair 02:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a bunch of weasel words and POV statements that need to be cleaned up.

The POV that I find particularly objectionable is "Some of the idea's challengers also claim that the War on Christmas is a conservative distraction to shift attention from the war in Iraq, and President Bush's sliding poll numbers. Bush has not commented on the matter. Supporters of this theory further claim that the proponents of the War on Christmas specifically exclude the current administration and President Bush's family from their criticism. While admonishing cities and towns for replacing Christian slogans, the proponents have so far kept silent about the White House "holiday card" that does not mention the word "Christmas", or Laura Bush only saying only "Happy Holidays" during the official Christmas tree unveiling at the White House." Jackk 18:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing objetionable there; at least, nothing in any way more objectionable than the rest of the article.

First of all, all of the facts listed in the paragraph are true. There is, indeed, no mention of Christmas in the White House holiday card, and Laura Bush indeed never mentioned Christmas at the tree ceremony.

Second of all, the paragraph lists these facts to describe and support a specific view. I'll refer you to such articles as Intelligent Design and 9/11 conspiracy theories to name a few. There are thousands of other examples of articles mentioning notable opinions on the topic. They are "points of view" by definition. It's impossible to describe an opinion while remaining neutral. Read the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. "Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them"". This is clearly the case here. 24.164.154.130 23:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article should describe previous wars on Christmas, such as the Puritans' ban on Christmas in 17th century Massachusetts and 19th century efforts to replace the bawdy, carnivalesque Christmas with the domestic, gift-giving Christmas of the past 180 odd years. Also, contemporary evangelical Christmas have made strides at re-Christianizing Christmas, for example with the introduction of phraes like "reason for the seaon". -Acjelen 18:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, those are good ideas but I wonder if they form a larger topic, like History of Christmas in the United States. FreplySpang (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I didn't include them, because although it's a fascinating topic, it may be too big to get into here. Maybe you could develop a line or two to replace the current sentence on the Knights of Columbus. I did think it was important to distinguish the FOX-led campaign, which has specific commercial objectives (i.e., use consumers' economic might to pressure stores into displaying the phrase "Merry Christmas") with the ongoing effort to balance spiritual and secular elements of Christmas, which I think has never stopped63.138.34.34 21:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very U.S.-centric. The notion (as ill-founded as it may be) of a modern "War on Christmas" is not restricted to the U.S. It is also found in the Australian and British media (and presumably many other parts of the world).

Just a quick reference I've found... From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Mediawatch programme: "Enjoy the holiday season and ignore those media reports that some politically correct Grinch is stealing Christmas. We hear that story every year, and it's never true." [2]

Fair enough. Do you know if the actual phrase "War on Christmas" is used outside the US? FreplySpang (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I've only heard "War on Christmas" used by two people -- Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson. However, the notion itself is used by many as an example of "political correctness gone mad".

I really wonder whether a "War on Christmas" is a widespread enough concept for a verifiable, neutral article to exist. If the phrase is used by O'Reilly, his usage of it could be discussed in his article. As for the book by Gibson, it could be covered in his article, or (if appropriate) an article could be made about the actual book. If this article is about anti-Christmas movements in general, maybe there's a better name for it. I just hate to see people picking through history and saying, "Look! This incident here must be part of the War on Christmas!" To do so, absent evidence of widespread usage of the term, essentially amounts to original research. As FreplySpang pointed out, maybe there is a larger topic here, and we just have to figure out exactly what it is. Friday (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I haven't contributed here (other than spelling, and that was minor), but I agree that this belongs as a section in another article. Secularization, Persecution of Christians (probably not), Secular humanism? --Elliskev 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bold proposal... Why not chalk this one up as a conspiracy theory?

The phrase "War on Christmas" conjurs up images of a concerted effort to destroy the holiday. The evidence cited for such an effort is totally insufficient. Most of it centres around the replacement of "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays", "Christmas Tree" with "Holiday Tree". Anyone who's been following the news lately will have noted that FOX News has been selling O'Reilly Factor "Holiday Ornaments"... which have since been renamed "Christmas Ornaments", after the hypocricy being pointed out.

Given that this urban legend has been circulating around for SO LONG [3] why not deal with it by marking it as a conspiracy? The argument involves more than sufficient paranoia to qualify.

Thoughts?

Jackk 01:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing a new source, it may be useful for the article. But it can't be the only source; we can't present one person's viewpoint as the whole picture. We just cite what others are saying, we don't try to decide on the one "correct" point of view. Friday (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting a "correct" point of view... rather, just proposing that we label this a conspiracy theory. Not to say it's devoid of evidence, but the notion that secular humanists are actively trying to wage war to destroy Christmas sounds like a tinfoil hat conspiracy. If this doesn't qualify as a conspiracy theory, one has to wonder what is. Jackk 02:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More...

From Conspiracy theory, a conspiracy is: "A type of logical argument that alleges that the cause of a specific event or series of events is a plot by a covert alliance rather than activity by public groups or natural occurrences."

The "War on Christmas" seems to meet these criteria. The principle allegation is that the reason people are saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" because Christmas is no longer acceptable. I think the example of the Fox News "Holiday Ornaments" is a good one here... If another network put out "Holiday Ornaments" O'Reilly et al would no doubt alledge it's part of a "plot" (to use Gibson's word) rather than an innocent label.

I would like to reach a consensus that it is a conspiracy theory. From there, perhaps we can build a focused article. Arguments/Counterarguments? Jackk 02:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more info to the Internation section, which is necessary according to the template at the head. If you want to add more information fine, do so, it doesn't bother me, but be fair and don't delete the whole section. Chooserr

Your additions to this section are slanted and factually incorrect. —Lifeisunfair 05:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also Alledged is like a double negative. Saying "They claim that...alledged" is only casting more doubt and making it more POV. I think the beginning sums up that it's not Wikipedia's Opinion. Chooserr

As I already explained to your sock puppet, the sentence addresses both the phenomenon’s existence (or lack thereof) and blame (if it exists). Removal of the word "alleged" creates the assumption of the phenomenon’s existence, leaving only the matter of blame. —Lifeisunfair 05:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the entire notion of neutraility. An article about opinions MUST contain points of view. The difference is that it should give equal weight to relevant dissenting views, and not accept either one. The White House - Laura Bush paragraph is an opinion. It is obvious to the reader it is an opinion. The rest of the article does not accept it as the truth. Thus, the overall neutrality is assured. If you absolutely must, you can add the "Criticism of criticism" section, and expand on that further. Just keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Your own opinion does not belong. BTW the source for the Laura Bush / White House opinion has been added to the article several times, and deleted by none other than yourself. If you feel that, after all, it does needs a citation, you're welcome to revert your changes. 24.164.154.130 04:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And as you consider the above, I should also mention that your now-deleted claim that it's OK for the White House Holiday card to not not mention Christmas because it has a Christian verse, is false. The card has a quotation from Psalms 28:7. I refer you to a wiki on the Book of Psalms. 24.164.154.130 04:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is this article supposed to be about? Why does it read like a blog? What is a 'war on christmass'? Can I stick a speedy tag on this page? This seems to be an article about a made up topic--Aolanonawanabe 03:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a made up topic. A speedy would be nice. 24.164.154.130 04:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a made-up topic. As strongly as I disagree with the idea that a "war on Christmas" exists, it is an actual claim by notable commentators. —Lifeisunfair 05:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I must agree with you two. There is no such thing as your War on Christmass. Chooserr

Please don't snipe at other editors for their typoes or spelling mistakes. That kind of rudeness is not welcome at Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, Chooserr's article edits are loaded with English errors. —Lifeisunfair 05:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a section about the "war on Christmas" in the UK, which was mostly a list of stores with descriptions of their holiday/Christmas signage. Unless we establish that "war on Christmas" is a widely-used phrase in the UK, it's original research/personal opinion to write about it here. (For that matter, I think the list of stores in the US could use a good pruning too - it's a strange way to present information unless you're organizing a boycott.) FreplySpang (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FreplySpang,

You might be right about the UK thing but somethings got to give. Either you get rid of the Globalize tag or you get add the UK stores. Chooserr

I think that calling it a "war on Christmas" is an American media phenomenon. For you to list stores and say "see, it's a war on Christmas in the UK too!" is original research. It's reasonable to describe what published sources say about this debate in other countries, as an anonymous commenter suggested above. But I would be okay with just leaving it as a description of the specific kerfuffle centered around Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson. FreplySpang (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am increasingly of the opinion that this article should go to WP:AfD. The title of the article seems inherently POV, its subject matter seems to be a borderline conspiracy theory, and the article in general reads like an attempt to organise a boycott of particluar stores. At the very least I think that the content should be moved into a subsection of a broader article. JeremyA 04:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I don't know. The War On Christmas, by that name, has been the subject of some recent back-and-forth in the U.S. opinion media lately. In other words, it's a notable conspiracy theory asserted by prominent people. As an American media phenomenon, I think it's notable enough for an article. But it's definitely a POV magnet and needs major attention. FreplySpang (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed through the article Christmas and there is room for expansion of the Christmas history material in its own article. Indeed, one footnote should be upgraded to the paragraph itself. I suppose History of Christmas would be the natural title for such an article. Christmas customs in the United States would follow the pattern established for the articles on Christmas in Poland, Romania, and the Philippines. Moving this article (War on Christmas) to either "history" or "customs" would result in a very lopsided article until much more material is added. -Acjelen 04:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anything useful would happen in an Afd. Maybe an RFC to get more opinions would help. So far, I don't think this article has been useful, due to pov warring and poor quality. But, maybe the topic is encyclopedic, I don't know. If someone Afd'd it tomorrow, I'd be tempted to say "delete", but part of me wants to wait and see if it can turn into something useful. I think more fruitful discussion is more likely to happen here on the talk page than in Afd. Friday (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the argument that Christmas is under attack or too secular is perennial (and probably as old as the modern Anglo-American Christmas). This year it seems to have a name. Perhaps in addition to treating the topic as a conspiracy theory, we might also think of it as time-sensitive. -Acjelen 05:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a few people (myself included) are working on trimming this down. I think it'd be useful to hold off any Afd'ing for a bit to see how that goes. Friday (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article has gotten trimmed a bit. So far I think it's an improvement. If anyone disagrees and wants to put back something that's been removed, it'd be nice to have an explanation here, or at least in the edit summary. I see User:Chooserr has put back in the "stores" section. I still don't think this belongs, because it's unsourced. By "unsourced", I don't mean I want a source backing up those facts, I want a source connecting the actions of these stores to the "War on Christmas". Friday (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The American Family Association (http://www.afa.net/) has mentioned a few of them in relation to the war on Chirstmas - which I can't recall off the top of my head. Bill O'Reilly mentioned Walgreens (which is important), Lowes (which I didn't add), Macy's. And Dillards has been critized in relation to the war on christmas. Chooserr

Here's a link [4]. Chooserr

The section about the white house's holiday card is disturbing in the fact that it is so one sided. Every time I have tried to rectify it it's been razed off. This leads me to think that it is just that...a cheap shot on the president. I'm not saying I can defend Laura Bush's saying only "Happy Holidays" but I think that the card section should either be fixed or removed. Chooserr

Suggest ways to fix it please, or reasons for the removal. The paragraph lists facts, supported by a citation. I believe they are relevant to the subject. 24.164.154.130 06:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think my addition does the world of good for that section, because otherwise it's biased. Not giving them any defence. Chooserr

Your additions are original research. It also shows bias. If using Holiday instead of Christmas was conditional, say by using a quote from the Tanakh, then the proponents should also apply the same logic to the entities they do criticise. If the official ACLU Holiday tree had a George Soros-sancioned plague that said "smite the Midianites as one man." Judges, 6:16, would that then be fine and dandy with O'Reilly? 24.164.154.130 06:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show that O'Reilly et al. are not admonishing the White House because of a verse from the Bible in the holiday card, then please do so. Otherwise it is original research on your part. The White House is hardly defenseless as they haven't done anything "wrong". They have followed the American pattern of combining Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, and presumably in the President's case, Hanukkah into a set of holidays and then sending a single card to cover them all. Most uses of "happy holidays" follows this pattern since it avoids wishing people well for holidays they don't observe. -Acjelen 06:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few peeople above seem to agree with me -- this is a conspiracy theory. I'd like to rename it as proposed above. Any dissenters? arguments? Jackk 07:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just afraid there'll be a new round of ruckus if the whole thing is labeled a conspiracy theory. Next thing we know, wikipedia is listed on O'Reilly's list of enemies of the people. Maybe we need a milder term in the heading, say simply a "War on Christmas Theory"? Ideally I would prefer a larger article on the overall topic of desecularization in the public sphere on a global scale, but it's unlikely to be written. (This is the newly-registered 24.164.154.130), Flyboy Will 07:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]